PRISON SENTENCES OF LESS THAN 12 MONTHS
Introduction: the present situation
One of the most important deficiencies in the present framework is the lack of utility in short prison sentences – those of less than 12 months. Only half of such sentences are served. Release is automatic and the second half is subject to no conditions whatsoever. With Home Detention Curfew, for many the period in custody is shorter than it would otherwise have been. The sentence is nevertheless used for large numbers of persistent offenders, with multiple problems and high risks of re-offending, whose offences (and record) are serious enough to justify a custodial sentence, but not so serious that longer prison sentences would be justified. A more effective recipe for failure could hardly be conceived.
3.2 The Prison Service has little if any
opportunity to work on the factors that underlie the criminality in these cases. Predominantly, the sentences serve the needs of punishment. The time available for anything else is usually extremely limited and the Prison Service has to concentrate on accommodation and containment, within basic prison regimes. As currently constructed, the second half of the sentence is too short to make meaningful programmes after release worthwhile. Some enterprising “Pathfinder” projects, run with the probation service and voluntary organisations, are showing what can be done with prisoners serving short sentences, as part of the development of “What works” in work with offenders to reduce re-offending. The pathfinder project run at Lewes prison in conjunction with CRI (Crime Reduction Initiatives) and the one at Low Newton prison run in conjunction with Durham Probation Service, are good examples of these, amongst others. For prisoners who are willing to co-operate with programmes after release, these show promise of good results. A more supportive sentencing framework, however, requiring more to be done with more offenders, would enable this pioneering work to achieve results on a wider scale.
3.3 The punitive effect of short prison sentences may contribute to general deterrence, and deter some offenders who have not gone far down a criminal career. Persistent offenders, however, are clearly not deterred by the prospects of this sort of punishment – whether because they take no account of being caught, assume they will not be convicted, or simply do not care or think about the
consequences of what they do. For large numbers of offenders who receive these sentences, they are markedly ineffective. Reconviction rates within 2 years of release – at 60% of those released – are higher for these sentences than for other prison sentences. Appendix 3 shows a strong correlation between numbers of previous convictions and the likelihood of receiving a short prison sentence. The sentences are therefore being used in cases for which they are particularly ill-designed and equipped.
3.4 Risks of re-offending among short-term prisoners are broadly similar to those on probation or combination orders. The figures for community service orders are lower. For persistent offenders of this type, whether they receive another community sentence or (very often) another short prison sentence will turn on the court’s view of the seriousness of the latest offence – or a desire to try something different. The short prison sentence is likely to do little, if anything, to protect the communities to which the prisoners will very shortly return, beyond the briefest respite; and little if anything to help or influence those offenders to change their lifestyles and observe the law.
3.5 Short prison sentences have in recent years
come to play an increasing part in penal policy, largely because of choices made by sentencers – mainly magistrates. Appendix 2 provides details. Between 1989 and 1999, sentences of less than 12 months for indictable offences and adults above 18, increased from 27000 to 45000 – an increase of 67%. The bulk of the increase was in the shortest of these sentences. Those of under 3 months increased by 176%; those of 3 months and less than 6 months by 89%. Appendix 2 shows the
disproportionate increase for female offenders. It also shows that the proportion of prison receptions accounted for by sentences of less than 6 months is correspondingly very high, at 60% of total
receptions in 1999. It is not clear why this marked shift has occurred, at a time when non-custodial sentences have themselves become more punitive. One reason may be a feeling that repeated
offending following non-custodial sentences leaves no alternative.
3.6 The review has found widespread
dissatisfaction with this state of affairs. Sentencers are frustrated at having to pass sentences they know
PRISON SENTENCES OF LESS THAN 12 MONTHS
have such limited effect. The prison service looks in vain for guidance on how to make the best of these sentences. The probation service feels, and is, powerless until the offender re-offends. Other participants, for example in the employment service, who are involved in the resettlement of these prisoners, wonder about their purpose. The results are the worst aspect of the so-called “revolving door”. The mischief lies not in the revolving door itself, but in the lack of any material impact on either side of it.
3.7 Some argue that many of those now receiving these sentences could equally well be dealt with through a community sentence. From recent trends, as shown in Appendix 2, it does look as if many offenders of this type were dealt with in that way, until the mid 1990s. Even taking things as they now are, in terms of punishment levels, the continued strengthening of community sentences, including the availability of curfews with electronic monitoring, drug treatment and testing orders, and stricter use of sanctions (including imprisonment) following breach of conditions, could justify greater use of community sentences than at present. Some other measures proposed in this report, including in the medium term the possible development of an “intermediate estate” to house offenders in the community (see chapter 5), could contribute to such a shift. Meanwhile however, short prison sentences will continue to be appropriate for many offenders. The question is: what form should such sentences take?
3.8 The main need is to provide a structured framework for work with the large number of offenders who persist in criminality, but not at a level of seriousness requiring longer prison sentences. This need could be met by requiring those who serve short prison sentences also to undertake programmes under supervision in the second part of their sentence, after release from the custodial part, under conditions, which – if
breached – could lead to return to custody. Those programmes would be of the same sort as those that are being developed by the prison and
probation services for offenders generally – whether under prison or community sentences. They would include
• “treatment”, for drug or alcohol abuse, mental health problems etc;
• “cognitive” programmes, aimed at changing offenders’ attitudes and consequently their behaviour;
• “skills” training, aimed at increasing the offender’s ability to be self-supporting, and
gainfully employed, including basic skills like numeracy and literacy;
• “resettlement”, including help with accommodation and employment;
• “relationships”.
Unless efforts of this sort are made, for many offenders receiving these sentences the chances of re-offending and returning to prison are all too high. The focus of the post-release programme would be on reform, resettlement, and public protection, including tough enforcement. Protective measures like curfews and electronic monitoring should also be available, but compulsory work would only be used on a small scale as part of a training programme, or as a means of making reparation to victims or the community. The increased involvement of voluntary organisations, and volunteers (for example as mentors), in partnership with the prison and probation services, will be essential in much of the work to prevent re-offending and support resettlement.
A new short term prison sentence
3.9 Various ways of re-defining short prison
sentences, so as to add compulsory programmes in the community to a period in custody can be conceived. Sentences of less than 12 months could be structured as they are now – with half served in prison, but the second half made subject to
conditions. In many cases, however, the supervisory period would be too short to enable an impact to be made on re-offending. In order to gain that impact, sentence lengths could increase unjustifiably. Also, a simple change of that sort would greatly increase the severity of the existing sentences, not just through the new conditions and programmes, but also through the liability to serve the whole term in prison if conditions are breached – which cannot happen now.
3.10 An alternative approach would be to make prison sentences of less than 12 months consist of more variable constituent parts. To achieve an impact on the risk of a persistent offender re-offending at least six months is needed. If the minimum supervisory period were six months, the least severe short prison sentence would consist of a minimum period in custody (say, 2 weeks) and six months under sentence in the community.
Potentially (for example if recalled to prison soon after release for breach of conditions) such a sentence would be much more severe than all prison sentences of 6 months or less now (which can amount to no more than 3 months in custody, and frequently less).
PRISON SENTENCES OF LESS THAN 12 MONTHS
3.11 In order to “translate” the existing sentences
into sentences that would have real meaning, and remain broadly equivalent in terms of severity, a novel approach is needed. The following paragraphs describe such an approach, before considering alternatives.
(i) “Custody Plus”
3.12 Under “custody plus” the period of custody could be any period between 2 weeks and 3 months (the equivalent of an existing 6 month sentence), and the period of supervision could be any period between a minimum of 6 months and whatever period would take the sentence as a whole to less than 12 months. The sentence would be expressed in terms of its total length and its constituent parts. A nine month sentence, for example, could be expressed as 1+8, 2+7, or 3+6. The next sentence in the sentencing hierarchy, above “custody plus”, would be a 12-month prison sentence, of which six months would have to be served before release under conditions (see the following chapter).
3.13 As a result, these prison sentences would mean what they said, instead of half of what they say. Prisoners under supervision would be liable to recall to prison administratively, on breach of conditions, with a right of appeal. In the event of recall, re-release would be possible only for those with 4 months or more left to serve at the recall point, and on the authority of a review hearing. Liability to recall to prison on breach of conditions would make this potentially a sentence almost as severe as one of 12 months under the new framework (see Chapter 4). The most severe short prison sentence, therefore would be 3 months in prison and nearly 9 months under supervision. The least severe short prison sentence, under ‘Custody plus’, would be one of 2 weeks in prison and 6 months under supervision. Sentence severity would therefore be “seamless” in its gradations,
notwithstanding the limit on the initial period in custody. Distinctions between co-defendants deserving different sentences could be made, for example, by varying the custodial or supervisory periods, or both.
3.14 The content of the supervisory period would be determined at sentence, on the basis of advice in the pre-sentence report. If work with the offender revealed a need for modification of the programme, this should be possible through a review hearing, provided that the punitive weight of the sentence remained proportionate.
3.15 The custodial period would not only be part of the punishment but would also provide an
opportunity to work with the offender on the content and implementation of the post release plan. If possible, work would begin during the custodial part of the sentence to tackle the
offending behaviour, as is already being done in the Pathfinder projects referred to at the start of this chapter. Treatment for drug or alcohol abuse, for example, could start in prison. Partnerships with the voluntary sector, as well as statutory services, have a lot to offer in this area. A dedicated part of the prison estate for this purpose (and perhaps for resettlement of longer term prisoners) could be useful, and help to reduce the risk that
overcrowding would disrupt the work with offenders because of the need to transfer them elsewhere to release cell space. This could be considered as part of the review of the
“intermediate estate” recommended in chapter 5.
(ii) 3 v. 6 months in custody
3.16 “Custody plus”, as described above, would prevent an immediate custodial period of more than 3 and less than 6 months (real time) from being ordered in court on sentencing. The rationale for this lies in the additional severity of the
“conditional release” period of the sentence, which is “convertible” to imprisonment and could be for as long as 111⁄
2months. Nevertheless, the review has found serious concern about the possibility of losing a court’s power to specify custodial periods of more than 3 and less than 6 months in custody as part of the new sentence. This must be taken seriously. If “custody plus” with a 3 month initial limit lacked the confidence of sentencers in the Crown Court, some have indicated that they might resort to 12 month sentences when shorter ones would have been sufficient.
3.17 In 1999, of those aged 18 or over sentenced to custody at the Crown Court, 12% (5,171) received a sentence of over 6 months and under 12 and would therefore have served over 3 and less than 6 months in custody unless they were released early under Home Detention Curfew. Of these about three quarters were given 9 months. In 75% of the cases resulting in more than 3 and less than 6 months of actual imprisonment, the custodial period is therefore 41
⁄2months, or less for offenders released early under Home Detention Curfew. In most cases, therefore, the difference between an immediate custodial period of 3 months in “custody plus”, and current terms of imprisonment, would be a month and a half or less – arguably at least equivalent to the minimum 6 months’ conditional release under “custody plus”, with liability to imprisonment on administrative recall following
PRISON SENTENCES OF LESS THAN 12 MONTHS
breach of conditions. In addition, the differences between the under 6 month, and over 6 less than 12 month populations, are not so marked as to justify a 6 month maximum for “custody plus”. Comparing the (provisional) figures for prison receptions of sentenced prisoners in 2000 – of which the 6 month or less population is five times larger than the over 6 and under 12 – the only real differences are a fall in motoring offences, from 24% to 8% of the longer sentence lengths, and a rise from 6% to 15% in the proportion of burglary offences. The proportion of offenders with a drugs problem falls from 42% to 33%, in the longer sentences, and the proportion of those working full or part-time rises from 28% to 40%.
3.18 If the maximum initial prison term was 3 months, the “loss” of graded severity of sentence would therefore be more apparent than real. An alternative option would be to fix the maximum period in custody under the new sentence at any period less than 6 months. The constituent parts of sentences under 12 months could therefore be any custodial period less than 6 months, and a
“conditional” release period of 6 months or more. It would probably be desirable to limit magistrates’ courts to 3 months (the equivalent of their six month jurisdiction at present), and restrict the discretion to go higher to the Crown Court. Apart from the objections of principle already described, this option would add to complexity, and to costs (see Chapter 9 and Appendix 7). Whether any value would result is hard to say. From the point of view of managing the offender population, there would be some loss of value, in being unable to distinguish a population subject to a different regime from others receiving longer prison sentences. Focussing work on short-term prisoners, with a view to protecting the public on their release and reducing risks of re-offending is more likely to be successful if the distinction between them and the longer-term population is not blurred. The adverse effects on the offender of anything up to 6, rather than 3, months in custody can of course be quite significant in terms of potential loss of employment, loss of accommodation and break up of family ties.
3.19 This section has argued that it would be wrong to parade the 3 month limit as a weakening of the existing framework. Taking the proposals as a whole, they amount to a considerable
strengthening. A proper debate, and a full
understanding of the implications, will be essential on this point. The case for “custody plus” will need to be made persuasively if misgivings about it are to be overcome.
‘Plain custody’
3.20 If “custody plus” is to be the new structure for prison sentences of less than 12 months, with a 3 month or 6 month maximum period in custody, the question arises whether all offenders receiving such sentences should receive the “plus” element, or whether courts should have discretion to dispense with it. The review has identified two arguments for allowing such a discretion, and facilitating a sentence of ‘plain custody’ with no post-release conditions or supervision.
3.21 The first argument for allowing courts to dispense with the “plus” element is that not all offenders will need it, and that to require it would divert resources from offenders who do. The thinking underlying this approach is that some offenders commit offences that are so serious that imprisonment is essential, but do not present the factors normally associated with persistent offending. They have stable, secure backgrounds; are first offenders; and appear to have “learned their lessons” as a result of being caught and punished. Although average reconviction rates are high, substantial numbers do not re-offend, and there is everything to be said for targeting resources on offenders with high risks of re-offending (who typically have already shown themselves to be persistent offenders).
3.22 The few cases in which it would obviously be
sensible to dispense with the “plus” element are, for example, cases of contempt of court, or involving foreign nationals who would return to their home country on release. Some offenders commit serious offences – for example involving breach of trust – but present low risks of re-offending. 14% of offenders sentenced to 6 months or less, in a sample taken during the review, had no previous
convictions; 50% of males had been in their own, or rented accommodation; and 28% were in full or part-time employment (55% were unemployed).
3.23 A second argument for allowing courts to dispense with the “plus” element is that some offenders would not comply with it, so that the attempt would be “not worthwhile”. Some offenders – a small proportion – are seen to be so recalcitrant and unresponsive that there is simply “no point” in trying to work with them in the community. There is no doubt that work with offenders frequently has to be done with long odds against success. If that was a case for giving up, however, there would be no point in any attempts to work with prisoners after release. Dispensing with the “plus” element in the least promising cases
PRISON SENTENCES OF LESS THAN 12 MONTHS
would be a policy of despair and would undermine the purpose of the sentence.
3.24 The balance of the arguments, in principle, lies in allowing courts discretion to dispense with the “plus” element – but not on the grounds of forecast non-compliance with the ‘plus’ element. There should be a high level of expectation that offenders receiving short prison sentences will need
supervision after release. In addition to the needs identified before sentence, some of the negative aspects of imprisonment, such as loss of job, loss of accommodation, loss of family or other support, may need to be tackled through resettlement programmes. Short-term prisoners, for example, are likely to feature in the 90% of prisoners who leave prison without a job and the one third of prisoners who lose their job on being sent to prison. They may also be among the three fifths of prisoners with very poor literacy skills, and the two thirds with very poor levels of numeracy. All of these factors are known to be associated with criminality. In the interests of protecting the public, therefore, there should be a presumption that short prison sentences will normally include a period of supervision unless the court finds reasons, which it should state, for not doing so. The safeguard for the public would be the power of administrative recall to prison in the event of non-compliance after release.
3.25 The “plain custody” version of the new short prison sentence would be subject to the same maximum custodial period on “custody plus” i.e. 3 or 6 months. The sentence would be expressed in terms of the period to be served – so that the sentence would mean what it said. Special provision would be needed to preserve the power of prison governors to add days in custody for breaches of prison discipline, which would otherwise be lost as a consequence of losing the “unconditional release” period of the existing sentences. The review has identified two ways of doing this. One would be to allow part of the sentence to be remitted for good behaviour. That would be inconsistent with the rest of the proposed framework, in which “earned remission” plays no part. A better alternative would be to provide that “plain custody” always included an additional number of days that would not be enforced except when justified by breaches of discipline.
3.26 It will be necessary to consider how the new sentencing structure should apply in relation to the maximum sentences for offences, and the
jurisdiction of the magistrates’ courts. In principle, if the new sentences have a maximum initial term of 3 months’ imprisonment, they should be
available for all offences having a maximum penalty, at present, of 6 months’ imprisonment or more. For offences carrying a maximum penalty of 3 months’ imprisonment, a restriction to plain custody might be the best option, but other possibilities should be explored. As to jurisdiction, in principle it seems right that magistrates’ courts should be able to pass the new sentences, up to the three month maximum initial term of imprisonment, even though at their most severe such sentences are potentially more punitive in their impact than the present limit of 6 months’ imprisonment. In principle, it could be argued that magistrates’ courts should also be able to pass the new sentences consecutively, so that the custodial period could be up to six months and the supervisory period up to 12 months. This should be considered further, however, alongside the
recommendations of Lord Justice Auld’s review of criminal courts.
Recommendations
• Prison sentences of less than 12 months need to be substantially reformed to make them more effective in reducing crime and protecting the public.
• All such sentences should normally consist of a period in prison (maximum 3 months) and a period of compulsory supervision in the community, subject to conditions and requirements whose breach may lead to return to prison.
• The period of supervision should be a minimum of 6 months, and a maximum of whatever would take the sentence as a whole to less than 12 months.
• In cases where the court identified no need for a supervisory period it should be able to order a period in custody, without post release supervision, of up to 3 months.
Chapter 4
PRISON SENTENCES OF 12 MONTHS OR MORE
Introduction: the present situation
Half of an existing prison sentence of twelve months or more at present has to be served in prison, unless the prisoner is released, at the discretion of the prison governor, under the Home Detention Curfew scheme. If the sentence is of four years or more the prisoner’s release depends on a decision by the Parole Board, until two thirds of the sentence have passed, at which point the prisoner must be released. All prisoners released from these sentences are subject to conditions which last until three quarters of the sentence have passed. At that point the offender is free of conditions. If convicted of a further offence committed after release, and before expiry of the sentence, the offender may have the outstanding part of the sentence, from the date of the offence to the expiry of the original sentence, activated by the court sentencing for the new offence. The origins of these sentences are to be found in the report of the review of parole, chaired by Lord Carlisle whose report was published in 1988 (Cm 532). As a summary of the relevant issues, the Report remains highly informative and illuminating.
4.2 Lord Carlisle’s review was constrained by the then existing framework for sentencing. His committee was asked to re-design arrangements for parole – and did so – but not the sentences within which parole operates (see, for example, paragraph 235 of the Report). The Criminal Justice Act 1991, broadly speaking, implemented the Carlisle
committee’s recommendations as they stood. A wholly new structure would have been introduced by the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (sections 10 to 27), but those provisions were repealed, not having been implemented, by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
4.3 The ideas underpinning the Carlisle Committee’s recommendations were that prison sentences should be served partly in prison and partly in the community; and that parole
(discretionary release) should be reserved for the most serious offenders (i.e. those serving sentences of four years or more). The complications resulting from release being either automatic at “half time”, or at the discretion of the Parole Board from the half way to the two thirds point; and from the last quarter being “free” but “activatable” on conviction of a further offence, probably result from the lack of a more fundamental review of sentencing as a
whole. Such a review – as the current one has found – would have needed to address the design of the prison sentence from first principles, with the aim of arriving at something less complex and more effective.
4.4 The changes that would have been made by the 1997 Act, had they been implemented, were driven by different ideas: “truth in sentencing” (so that time served in prison would have been closer to the time specified in the sentence); and “earned remission” (so that prisoners could have been released early, at discretion, on grounds of good behaviour).
4.5 Special provisions apply to violent and sexual
offenders. The supervision of offenders convicted of sexual or violent offences may be extended where the court decides that a longer period of supervision is necessary to prevent further offending and secure rehabilitation (section 85, Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000). Supervision may be extended for up to ten years in the case of a sexual offence, and five in the case of a violent offence (provided that the offender receives a prison sentence of four years or more). Violent and sexual offences are defined for this purpose in section 161 of the Act.
4.6 Other provisions enable courts to impose custody when they would not otherwise have been justified in doing so, or to impose a longer sentence than would otherwise have been justified, when they identify a need to protect the public from serious harm from an offender convicted of a violent or sexual offence (sections 79 and 80 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000). Where the maximum sentence for an offence is life
imprisonment, courts also have the discretion to pass that sentence and should do so (according to guidance from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) when the offence and associated risks are serious enough.
4.7 Taking the present framework as it is, there is no obvious reason why the last quarter of a prison sentence should have an effect on the offender only if he/she commits a further offence during it. An alternative presumption – that the sentence should run its full course so that supervising services can act if necessary right up to its expiry –is likely to create more confidence and increase the
effectiveness of work to reduce re-offending. As
PRISON SENTENCES OF 12 MONTHS OR MORE
things stand now, some sentencers have said they find it difficult to read out to offenders in open court, as they are supposed to do, the precise effect of the prison sentence they have passed, because doing so undermines so much – for all listeners – the effect of their decision.
4.8 Making the supervisory period of the existing sentence run to its expiry would make these prison sentences more “real”, and increase the
opportunities for crime reduction through work with the offender and use of restrictions on liberty. It would also be more punitive, because of the extended conditions and requirements, and liability to recall to prison for breach of them. Keeping an equal division between time in custody and time in the community is a reasonable starting presumption. There is no reason why someone who receives a longer sentence should be liable on that ground alone to spend more of it in prison than someone serving a shorter sentence. An equal division also provides a sound footing for work to prevent re-offending after release. Including the supervisory period as part of the prison sentence enables offenders who breach conditions to be returned swiftly to prison. The sentence is genuinely,
therefore, and in its entirety, one of imprisonment – served partly in prison and partly in the community – the requirements for the community element being determined by the offender’s behaviour.
4.9 Supervision following prison also needs strengthening. Making supervision run for the whole of the second half of all sentences would at least double its length in all cases. Content, however, is even more important than length. A prisoner’s “re-entry” to the community is a crucial moment, in terms of protecting the public and guarding against re-offending. Policies have long been in place which recognise this and call for work by the prison and probation services to plan an offender’s sentence, including the post release period. But the idea of a prison sentence that is served partly in prison and partly in the community, combining work inside prison and in the community “seamlessly” to reduce re-offending, has not taken root. Probation staff tell of offenders who on release from prison do not understand why they have to report to the
probation service at all, and who feel that they have “done their time” and should be left alone. A recent joint inspection by the Prison and Probation
Inspectorates is likely to show that even where there is an obligation on the probation service to provide supervision after release (all sentences of 12 months or more), resettlement cases are viewed as the “poor relations” compared with community sentences and
very little pre-release planning is being undertaken.
4.10 The introduction of Home Detention Curfew (HDC) has rapidly increased the availability of curfews with electronic monitoring, as part of a “package” of controls on release but its capacity to support resettlement objectives is under-exploited. A great deal can be done to make release planning, and management of prisoners’ return to the
community, more effective, buttressing curfews, and electronic monitoring where necessary, with
programmes to meet identifiable needs.
4.11 Reconviction rates increase with the length of period after release (see Appendix 6). Risks of “relapse” have been identified in offenders who appear to have done well in treatment; and the probation service is developing “booster”
programmes to reinforce the impact of earlier ones. Longer periods under enforceable conditions after release will enable the impact on offending behaviour to be sustained in this sort of way, to bring re-offending down.
4.12 The present framework is not conducive to maximising performance in this important respect of resettling prisoners in the community. Changes could increase the likelihood of prisoners returning to the community with appropriate conditions, geared to completing work begun in prison to reduce re-offending, and to managing any risks to the public. The prison and probation services are showing how this can be done in relation to the most serious and dangerous offenders.
4.13 This chapter looks first at sentences of 12 months or more, as they apply to the majority of offenders, and secondly at the sentences available for the more dangerous offenders from whom the public needs special protection.
A new custodial sentence of 12 months
or more
4.14 It continues to make sense that prison sentences should be served partly in prison and partly in the community, so that resettlement and behaviour after release can be steered and monitored under conditions whose breach may necessitate return to prison. But to make prison sentences more meaningful and effective, they should be served in full. The first half should always be in prison. Whether any part of the second half need be in prison should depend on the offender’s compliance with conditions imposed on release. Those conditions should be based on up to date assessments of risks, and of needs for
PRISON SENTENCES OF 12 MONTHS OR MORE
protect the public. Legitimacy and transparency would be served by the courts having more say in the content of the second half of the sentence. A review by the court before release, to determine – on advice from the prison and probation services – the content of the second half of the sentence would stimulate better pre-release planning and exert more transparent leverage over the offender’s future behaviour (see chapter 7).
4.15 When sentencing an offender to a prison term of twelve months or more, under this new
approach, a court would:
• indicate to the prison service, from the
assessment of risks and needs in the pre-sentence report, the type of work needing to be done to reduce the risk of re-offending, and
• explain to the offender that the weight of the conditions to be applied during the second half of the sentence will depend on how well he/she co-operates with the prison service’s work, and that those conditions could be onerous in the event of non-compliance or poor progress.
These steps would make visible to the offender, the public, and the prison and probation services, what the court expected of the sentence, in terms of efforts to prevent re-offending. This should stimulate and energise the process, and provide a basis for review, before release into the community.
4.16 Before such an offender was released, the prison and probation services would together design a “package” of measures to be required of the offender after release, depending on their up to date assessment of the risk of re-offending and the need for further work to reduce it and protect the public. The same range of options as those for a community sentence would be available: curfew, exclusion and electronic monitoring; residence requirement; attendance at treatment or other programmes aimed at changing criminal behaviour or improving job related skills; supervision to monitor and enforce the programme and provide other support aimed at preventing offending. The conditions would be geared to crime reduction and public protection as well as resettlement and rehabilitation. Compulsory work could only be used on a relatively small scale for the purposes of training or reparation. The Prison and Probation Services would consult other statutory voluntary and independent agencies in the design and delivery of suitable programmes, and involve them where possible and desirable. Other standard conditions, listed below, would apply as they do now.
4.17 The probation service would put proposals, developed jointly with the Prison Service, to a review hearing of the appropriate court (see chapter 7 on review hearings). The court would decide whether to endorse them or commission advice on further options. Once satisfied, the court would explain the effects of the programme to the offender, the importance of compliance with the requirements, and the likelihood of return to prison for non-compliance. If necessary, the court could order a further review hearing, to review progress, at a fixed interval after release. The intensity of the “package” could vary during the remainder of the sentence, if the offender’s behaviour justified modification of it. Good progress by the offender should enable the probation service to apply for a review hearing for the purpose of lifting sanctions no longer needed. Low levels of compliance should result in applications for tougher sanctions, unless the failures were so serious as to justify immediate recall to prison. If recalled the offender would be entitled to a review hearing 12 months from the date of recall to determine suitability for re-release. That review hearing would also set the date of any
STANDARD CONDITIONS
While under supervision you must:
i. keep in touch with your supervising officer in accordance with any reasonable hours that you may from time to time be given; ii. if required, receive visits from your
supervising officer at your home at reasonable hours and for reasonable periods;
iii. live where reasonably approved by your supervising officer and notify him or her in advance of any proposed change of address;
iv. undertake only such employment as your supervising officer reasonably approves and notify him or her in advance of any proposed change in employment or occupation;
v. not travel outside the United Kingdom without obtaining the prior permission of your supervising officer (which will be given in exceptional circumstances only); vi. be of good behaviour, not commit any
offence and not take any action which would jeopardise the objectives of your supervision, namely to protect the public, prevent you from re-offending and secure your successful reintegration into the community.
PRISON SENTENCES OF 12 MONTHS OR MORE
future hearings. In the longer periods of
supervision the more intensive programmes would be completed well before the end of the sentence. Where continuous risk and needs assessment showed that further work was necessary, however, “booster” programmes would be provided, if necessary with the authority of the court through a review hearing.
4.18 Under this approach sentences would “mean what they say” and – more importantly – the second half of the sentence would be much more effective, through its extra length, greater attention to post-release conditions, and extended likelihood of recall to prison if conditions are breached. The changes proposed would increase the punitive weight of the sentence, which raises questions about sentence length. These are discussed in chapter 9.
Discretionar y release?
4.19 Home Detention Curfew (HDC) and parole currently provide for release at discretion, rather than at points fixed by the court. The argument for HDC is that it enables curfew with electronic monitoring to facilitate re-settlement of those prisoners judged “safe enough” to release before the normal time has been served. For sentences of less than 12 months, HDC provides a form of controlled release that would not otherwise be available at all. The case for the existing parole system is that it enables prisoners serving the longest sentences to be kept in prison for longer than others, if their continued detention is necessary to protect the public. The rationale for this is that those serving the longest sentences present the greatest risk to the public and should therefore be liable to spend a longer proportion of their sentences in prison. What sort of discretionary release systems, if any, should there be in a new framework?
4.20 The main case for discretion to release prisoners “early” is that a prospect of early release can provide prisoners with an incentive to co-operate with programmes in prison aimed at reducing risks of re-offending. To the extent that any increased co-operation enables them to make better progress than would have resulted otherwise, risk of their re-offending could be reduced.
Another possible argument, for discretion to release early in order to aid prison discipline, is not strong when viewed as a whole: good behaviour in prison, induced by a desire for early release, is unlikely to be a reliable guide to behaviour after release. For disciplinary purposes, it is better to use other means of creating incentives within prison regimes, and to retain existing powers to add days to the prison
sentence for misbehaviour. “Earned early release” may be helpful in prison management, but if not accompanied by strict risk assessment, can increase crime. To combine the two approaches would be confusing and potentially frustrating, for example to a prisoner who behaved well but was still assessed as high risk so could not be released. The case for discretion to release prisoners “late” is that the risk of their re-offending can be delayed. It is interesting to note, from an analysis of prisoners discharged from sentences of 4 years or more (but less than life) in 2000, that a large proportion – around 40% were released on or around the halfway point.
4.21 Before examining the arguments for “early” or “late” release, it is necessary to look at the different ways in which discretionary release systems can be constructed. The review has examined three possibilities:
• discretion to keep some prisoners in prison for longer than others who are released automatically;
• discretion to release people earlier than the automatic release date (like HDC);
• discretion to release people during a period which “straddles” symmetrically the normal release date (such as exists in the Detention and Training Order for young offenders).
Any of these would be possible. If the first applied to all prisoners it would result in more prisoners being kept in custody for longer than at present (all other things being equal); and the second would result in some being released earlier; the net results of the third would depend largely on how discretion was exercised, and especially on how much caution was exercised over risks of re-offending. For modelling purposes, the review has adopted the last of these, as one that is well suited to the purpose of determining release in relation to risks of re-offending, without any presumption as to whether prisoners as a whole should stay in longer or come out earlier. Three scenarios have been evaluated: a “severe” approach, resulting in average prison terms of more than half the sentence; a “lenient”
approach, resulting in average terms of less than half; and a “neutral” approach, in which early and late releases cancel each other out (see Appendix 7). But whilst this was a useful model to adopt for the modelling and costings work, it also showed how difficult it is to construct suitable ‘windows’ around the half way point. Any workable system will inevitably include possible anomalies where, for instance, someone getting a longer sentence could be let out earlier than someone receiving a shorter sentence.
PRISON SENTENCES OF 12 MONTHS OR MORE
4.22 Points to bear in mind when deciding whether
and in what circumstances to allow for discretionary release include the following.
• Any discretionary release system is likely to detract from the finality of the court’s sentencing decision, and create uncertainty about the punitive outcome of the sentence. This could be bad for victim and public confidence.
• All risk assessment includes “false positives” as well as “false negatives” – so some who would not have offended will be held unnecessarily, while some released will offend, creating additional victims and undermining public confidence. Extra care to avoid either of these risks will only increase the other.
• A requirement for a prisoner simply to “complete the programme” in prison would not be enough. The risk assessment would be vital. A prisoner who did all asked of him/her, but was refused release on grounds of risk assessment, is likely to be very unhappy and potentially disruptive.
• If completion of programmes was a pre-requisite for release, it could be argued that programmes would need to be equally available to all prisoners, in order to be fair. Although that would be a good thing in itself, it could prove difficult to achieve in practice.
• Discretionary release systems consume a lot of time, effort, energy and resource, focussing on deciding the “right” release date. Yet, the “added value” of marginal changes in release dates, in terms of the effect on an offender’s criminal career, is likely to be extremely small, and in the case of shorter sentences where the range of possibilities will be small, any effect would border on the negligible.
• The content of the post-release programme, including the conditions and requirements to be made of the offender and the seamless
continuation after release of work to prevent offending and protect the public, is likely to be much more important than the precise date of release. Requiring resources to be devoted to “getting the release date right”, within limited budgets, is likely to divert energy and resource from the much more important tasks of seamless pre and post release sentence planning.
• The net effect of a “neutral” release system, like the Detention and Training Order for young offenders, will depend on how discretion is used. If decision-makers were cautious, the net effect would be to increase the average time spent in custody; if they were more prepared to take risks, average time in custody would reduce. In both cases, however, a proportion of those released
(who would be greater in number in the second instance than in the first) would offend when they might have been in custody.
• Discretionary release systems have implications for public confidence, through the inevitable loss of transparency over the time to be served in custody.
4.23 The contributions of variable release systems of this sort to crime reduction and public
confidence are therefore highly dubious. Their administrative costs are inescapable; and the long term effect on the need for prison places is hard to estimate. Looking at all the various factors, the balance lies in limiting discretionary release systems to those offenders who pose the most significant threat to the public, and whose continued detention beyond “the norm” can therefore be justified. For the bulk of prisoners, fixed release points are better able to meet the needs of punishment and crime reduction. Focussing on fixed release points, for most offenders, is necessary and helpful for effective management of a prisoner’s return to the community, under suitable restrictions and
conditions. Fixed release will avoid some of the costs of discretionary release systems whose effects on offending are likely to be small – and not entirely positive. Fixed release will also make it easier to concentrate on the more important task of managing resettlement in ways that sustain the sentence in the community and protect the public, and enable the prison and probation services to continue in the community work begun in prison. By comparison with what exists now, prisoners would have the additional incentive to co-operate in prison with programmes to prevent re-offending, in order to minimise the conditions and programmes likely to be imposed after release. Other incentives can be used as part of prison regimes and privileges.
4.24 With fixed release dates, the effects of HDC would in effect be “rolled forward” into the second part of the prison sentence. Apart from the relatively small numbers receiving short periods of imprisonment without supervision on release, the effects of HDC would be achievable within the redesigned custodial sentences, which would focus more directly on pre-release planning and
programmes (including curfews with tagging) to protect the public and prevent re-offending as they re-enter the community. The loss of early release through HDC would create additional costs and increase the prison population, in the absence of any offsetting changes. This is taken into account in Chapter 9 and Appendix 7.
PRISON SENTENCES OF 12 MONTHS OR MORE
‘Dangerous’ offenders
4.25 Existing powers to deal with dangerous offenders were described in paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6. “Dangerous” for the purposes of this review applies to an offender assessed as having a high risk of committing a further offence that would cause serious harm to the public. Powers to deal with those whose risk to others arises from a severe personality disorder have been considered in a separate review, “Managing dangerous people with severe personality disorder: taking forward the Government’s proposals”. The Government’s proposals were published in the White Paper “Reforming the Mental Health Act” in December 2000. Although these proposals include
arrangements for those currently before the courts – for example, improved access to risk assessment and a range of disposals – it is clear they will not cover all of those who are “dangerous” as defined in this paragraph and will not, therefore, sweep away the need for powers of the sort described in paragraph 4.5 and 4.6.
4.26 A “special” type of sentence is therefore needed in a new framework, for offenders for whom the application of compulsory powers under the Mental Health Legislation is not appropriate and for those who do not receive a life sentence. Where a life sentence is available it should always be considered. In some cases its use would not be appropriate, for example when the current offence, the risks of re-offending, and the risks of resulting harm are not so serious as to justify using a life time penalty; but when the risk of serious harm is clearly established, a life sentence may be appropriate, even when the required period in custody, for retribution, is relatively short.
4.27 When a life sentence was not available, or was
inappropriate, a new determinate prison sentence would be based on the following characteristics:
• An offender would be eligible for the “special” sentence on conviction of specified violent or sexual offences, and any other criteria needed to establish a threshold.
• Whether to use the sentence in cases where the offender was eligible would depend on the risks of re-offending and the likely seriousness of any resulting harm, as shown through the pre-sentence report and any other available
information (e.g. a psychiatrist’s or psychologist’s report). Only when there were high risks of re-offending and serious harm would the sentence be used. Harm could be defined, as now in s.161(4) of the Powers of Criminal Courts
(Sentencing) Act 2000, in terms of death or serious personal injury (whether physical or psychological).
• When used, the length of the prison sentence would be the same as if the offender had not qualified for the “special” sentence, but its effect would be different. Instead of being released to serve the second half of the sentence under conditions in the community, the offender would be released only at the discretion of the Parole Board, throughout the second half of the sentence. Conditions on release would be set by the Board, which would have the same range of options as would be available in the case of release from “ordinary” prison sentences of more than 12 months.
• In addition, the sentencing court would have power to order an extended period of
supervision after release, up to a maximum of 10 years from the normal sentence expiry date or the maximum for the offence, whichever is the lesser. At present, the maximum period of extended supervision is 10 years for sexual, and 5 years for violent offences. Whether to keep that distinction, or adopt a single period of 10 years for both types of offence should be considered as part of the decisions to be reached following the current review of the Sex Offenders Act. Supervision would be extended in any case where there was a strong likelihood that the offender would not be released during the second half of the prison term. Any review decisions during extended supervision would be by the Parole Board (see also chapter 7).
This sentence would replace sections 79, 80 and 85 of the Powers of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.
4.28 An alternative approach would be to transfer all release decisions from the Parole Board to the courts, as part of the review hearings advocated for other sentences. While that has the appeal of simplicity, it overlooks the special importance of decisions in these cases, and the need for time and expertise in weighing up risks and options, while keeping the needs of the public in mind. Although courts could sit with expert assessors, a busy court schedule is less than ideal for these cases, and it would be better to see how other types of review hearing develop before adding further to courts’ tasks. The Parole Board is well suited to these responsibilities, alongside its present responsibilities for life sentence prisoners.
PRISON SENTENCES OF 12 MONTHS OR MORE
What threshold?
4.29 It will be important to set a threshold for this
sentence to ensure that it is reserved for dangerous offenders, and not used inappropriately.
Dangerousness must mean high levels of risk, and of resulting harm. The most obvious starting point for determining eligibility for the sentence is the approach adopted by the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (section 68). That approach would need further development to establish qualifying offences for the “special” sentence, and (most probably) qualifying prison terms.
4.30 A current review of Part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 is likely to produce a list of all sex offences considered to carry sufficient risk to justify registration as a sex offender. Sex offences are also under more general review. Depending on these reviews, it might prove sensible to provide that all offenders committing sex offences who are required to register should be eligible for the “special” sentence. No firm recommendation would be sensible at this stage, but the possibility should be examined once the reviews are complete.
4.31 For violent offences, the list of offences in Schedule 4 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act could be a useful starting point, although it would need further refinement. In its present form it only includes offences when they have been committed against children under 18. Whether a “list” approach would be sufficient for violent offences would have to be considered further. A more general provision, like section 161(3) of the Powers of Criminal Courts
(Sentencing) Act 2000 for violent offences, might be necessary.
4.32 Whatever the definition of the “threshold” offences, there would also need to be a “threshold” sentence. The present “parole” threshold of four years is one possibility, but seems too high for this purpose – at least in relation to sexual offences. Four years is the threshold at present for extended supervision in the case of violent offences. Section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 adopts sentences of 12 months or more as the threshold for violent and sexual offenders subject to its provisions for risk management in the
community.
4.33 This is an area where risk of re-offending and likely seriousness of resulting harm will be as important as the seriousness of the current offence. That said, the proposed new sentence is potentially very onerous and punitive, especially if used to its maximum extent. Much turns on how much
discretion should be left to the courts: the lower the threshold, the greater the discretion. The thresholds for violent and sexual offences need not be the same. Sex offenders as a group may pose higher risks of re-offending, which could justify a lower threshold for them.
4.34 Under the proposals in this report, the sentence to be passed will be more severe than it would otherwise have been, if there are sufficiently recent and relevant previous convictions. A possible approach would be to provide that the “special” sentence would be available when:
• The sentence for the current offence(s) was 12 months or more, and
• the offender had been convicted previously of a qualifying offence and had been sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment or more for that offence.
4.35 More thought needs to be given to the options than has been possible in this review. A new sentence of the sort proposed, however, offers the prospect of a clearer, more transparent way of dealing with the offenders in question. It would clear away the recent ‘undergrowth’ of provisions in this area, notwithstanding the inevitable detail of the qualifying conditions – which could themselves be simplified as part of the process.
Recommendations
• Prison sentences of 12 months or more should continue to be served partly in prison and partly in the community, but conditions of release, and supervision, should continue to the end of the sentence, with liability to recall to prison if conditions are breached. For most offenders release would be at the half-way point of the sentence.
• Before the release of a prisoner, the content of the second half of the sentence should be subject to court review, on the basis of proposals prepared jointly by the prison and probation service, in consultation with other statutory, independent, and voluntary sectors. • Discretionary release should be reserved for
violent and sexual offenders who may need to be detained for longer to avoid risks of serious harm to the public.
• Violent or sexual offenders who present a risk of serious harm to the public should be eligible for a new sentence, the effect of which would be to make their release during the second half of the sentence dependent on a decision by the Parole Board. Courts would have power to extend the supervisory part of the sentence.
INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS
Introduction
The changes advocated in the previous two chapters would result in the following range of prison sentences:
• under 12 months: sentences would be served in proportions laid down by the court, of up to three months in custody, and in most cases from six months to whatever period would take the total to 12, under specified restrictions in the community, breach of which could result in return to custody;
• 12 months and over: half of the sentence would be served in prison and half in the community, under restrictions authorised by a court, breach of which could result in return to custody;
• dangerous offenders: half of the sentence would be served in custody, release during the second half would depend on the discretion of the Parole Board, and sentencing courts would be able to extend supervision after release for up to 10 years or the maximum for the offence.
5.2 These changes offer the prospect of many benefits, including:
• much more meaningful, and longer, impacts on offenders during the second half of the sentence;
• wholly new impacts on offenders on release from short prison sentences;
• a simpler, cleaner structure, better able to differentiate between the risks and needs posed by different groups of offenders;
• a more transparent set of powers, easier to understand;
• fewer administrative complications, wasted effort, and errors, in calculating time to be served.
Under the proposals in Chapter 2, these benefits should bear down particularly on persistent offenders.
5.3 Two further possibilities have been examined: the scope for “intermittent custody”, which would allow the offender to spend part of the sentence out of prison, for example in order to stay in work; and “suspended sentence plus”, which would combine a suspended sentence of imprisonment with (in effect) a community sentence.
“Intermittent custody”
5.4 “Partial” or “intermittent” custody has long
been advocated by some, as a way of avoiding some of the negative aspects of imprisonment, such as loss of job or home, or damage to family or other
relationships. Such a sentence could meet the needs of cases in which spending some time in prison is necessary to mark the seriousness of the criminality, but in which “full time” imprisonment is not judged necessary. “Intermittence” could cover “weekend” imprisonment, or imprisonment for parts of the day or night. The Prison Service already uses Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) in support of
resettlement, before permanent release, primarily for prisoners towards the end of their sentence. In 1999, for example, 256, 179 ROTLs were granted, of which 70,726 were for resettlement purposes such as securing accommodation or employment, undertaking community service, or renewing family ties.
5.5 Release on temporary licence would not be a suitable means of achieving a sentence of
“intermittent custody”. Release decisions are for the Prison Service, and if Prison Service staff were deliberately to alter the punitive effect of a sentence by granting intermittent release throughout the custodial part of the sentence, the legitimacy of the court order and the sentence passed would be undermined. “Intermittence” would more appropriately be ordered by the court itself.
5.6 The Prison Service has told the review that, with the existing prison estate and prison
population, it would not be able to accommodate a new sentence of intermittent custody. Prisoners under such a sentence would need to be held in local prisons, which are under the greatest pressures. Holding prison cell space vacant for days, or parts of days at a time, in such prisons would be difficult, disruptive and potentially wasteful. “Full-time” prisoners might have to be dispersed, and their regimes disrupted, even more often than at present, in order to ensure cell space was available for prisoners returning from release.
5.7 Much would depend on whether intermittent custody was used for offenders already receiving prison sentences, or for those who now receive non-custodial sentences. Pressure on prison places would increase only if the new sentence drew more offenders into prison – which it might.
INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS
1Prison Disturbances April 1990 – Repor t of an Inquir y by the Rt Hon Lord Justice Woolf (Par ts I and II) and His Honour Judge Stephen Tumin (Par t II), Februar y 1991, Cm 1456
5.8 The review has taken account of work
underpinning the Government’s Reply to the Third Report from the Home Affairs Committee Session 1997-98, HC486 – Alternatives to Prison Sentences (Cm 4174). The Committee had recognised both the potential advantages of “weekend prison”, in enabling offenders to keep or seek employment, and a number of difficult practical issues to be resolved concerning its implementation. It recommended a feasibility study by the Home Office to see if weekend prison could be made possible without significant extra costs. The Government, in its Response, concluded that from the operational perspective it would be difficult to manage the logistics of such an arrangement, and expressed concerns about possible “net widening”. The Government concluded that weekend prison would not be a viable and useful option at that time.
5.9 Limitations in the existing prison estate are a real problem. A new sentence would require a review to establish what sort of prison accommodation and regimes would best suit a “floating” population. The sort of “community prisons” advocated in the Report on Prison Disturbances in April 19901could lend themselves to this sort of sentence. They could also have advantages for the new short prison sentences advocated in this report.
5.10 The possible costs and benefits of intermittent custody are difficult to estimate, and any estimates would in any event be highly speculative. Leaving prison places unoccupied might at first sight appear wasteful, but if they would otherwise have been occupied, at possibly greater expense, that would not be the case. Whether offenders released
intermittently would offend during release periods is difficult to say. Equally, it is difficult to say whether longer term re-offending rates would be affected. The effect on public confidence is also hard to judge – a serious offence committed by a released prisoner would cause concern, but that is true of any serious offence committed by an offender under sentence, and reflects general concern over the most serious and persistent offenders, for whom a sentence of intermittent custody would not be appropriate. Much would depend on how it was used.
5.11 The review has been unable to draw firm conclusions from the experience in other
jurisdictions of intermittent custody. Short periods in jail are used in the USA, for example as sanctions for breach of conditions in the community. Use of
“weekend imprisonment” in some European countries appears to have faded out.
5.12 The effects of intermittent imprisonment can be achieved in other ways. An offender receiving a community sentence can be required to reside at a named address, including a probation or prison hostel; to attend a designated centre at designated times; to stay at home under curfew, electronically monitored, for designated periods; and to refrain from entering designated areas at any time. This can amount to intermittent “containment in the
community”.
5.13 An “intermediate sanction”, involving serious loss of liberty, but some continuing freedom, can help to deal with offenders in transition – whether from a less restrictive community sentence which needs to be “beefed up”, or from imprisonment to a relatively restrictive (but supportive) programme of resettlement. Much can be done without creating new types of sentence. If the goal is to maximise loss of liberty, for punitive or protective reasons, while avoiding some of the negative consequences of imprisonment like loss of home or job,
intermittent “containment in the community” could be the better course. Conditions of community sentences, and of the second half of prison sentences, could be used in the new framework to achieve “intermediate sanctions” for those who need them – whether because of the risks they pose in terms of further offending and resulting harm, their needs in terms of supervision and support, or both. An infrastructure of accommodation would be needed, suitable for prisoners after transfer from the prison to the community part of a prison sentence and for offenders serving non-custodial sentences.
5.14 The review has not been able to look closely at the estate that is already available to support, and contain offenders in this “intermediate” state. Probation centres, approved hostels and attendance centres (renamed senior custody centres) are likely to comprise a substantial resource. Maximising the benefits of its use, within the sentencing
framework, calls for deeper analysis and review than has so far been possible. Such a review could contribute to the current efforts to integrate more closely the work of the prison and probation services and could be used to explore the possibilities for bringing together the probation service’s three ‘residential’ facilities (above). The outcome of the review would be a clear national
INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS
policy about how such an “intermediate estate” was to be used and developed, in consultation with sentencers, and taking account of their interests. The review would embrace the various uses to which the estate can be put including:
• accommodation
• “treatment” (drug and alcohol misuse, mental health)
• “containment” (with electronically monitored curfew)
• supervision (monitoring and support)
• purposeful activity (including programmes to influence behaviour, improve skills and job prospects)
• scope for using the estate as part of the response to breach of conditions while under sentence in the community (whether under a community sentence or after release from prison).
It would consider how the estate should be
organised and run, bearing in mind its potential for those under community sentences, and for prisoners (before or after release), and the opportunities it could provide for joint staffing and management by the prison and probation services. It would need to have an eye on the legal basis for housing different ‘types’ of offender together (for instance those on ‘license’ and those who are accommodated voluntarily). The scope for using ROTL in conjunction with an “intermediate estate” would also be considered, covering prisoners at any stage of their sentence, and not just near the end. Any new developments could be piloted and evaluated.
5.15 This review has found continued support for the idea of “intermittent custody”. Difficulties for the Prison Service would need to be overcome before a new sentence could be recommended with confidence. Acceptability of the idea to a wider public would also need to be tested further, and it would need to be clear whether “intermittent custody” would be used for offenders already going to prison, or for those who do not. Long term planning of the prison estate should establish what sort of local prisons would best meet the needs of short sentence prisoners, some of whom might serve their sentences “intermittently” if a court so ordered. Out of this, the scope for an “intermittent prison sentence”, incorporating a court order for intermittent release for specified purposes (such as work or treatment) should be re-examined. A new “intermediate estate” for offenders under sentence in the community, whether on release from prison or under a community sentence, would not depend on any new sentence being available, and should be
pursued regardless as a means of supporting the new framework and integrated work with offenders. A time frame of not more than 12 months should be set for the proposed review of the “intermediate estate”, and its use and management.
Suspended sentence “plus”
5.16 A prison sentence may currently be suspended only in exceptional circumstances (section 118 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000). Some have argued that this restriction should be removed. The review has not found strong grounds for doing so. If an offence, and previous convictions, mean that a prison sentence has to be passed, because no other sentence would be adequate, a decision not to impose it in practice, so that – provided no further offence is committed while the sentence is in force – the offender entirely escapes punishment, does need to be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Otherwise, the force of a custodial sentence will be lost, possibly along with the importance of
reserving it for cases where no other sentence will do. If a court is as confident as it can be that the offender has a low risk of re-offending, but needs a tough punishment because of the seriousness of the offence, it can use its judgement to find the right balance. The fact that imprisonment will in a new framework underpin community sentences should make a significant difference to the perceived “toughness” of the “toughest” community penalties – and the shorter prison sentences will be much more punitive in their effect than what exists now.
5.17 The review has looked at the possibility of
creating a new sentence of suspended imprisonment combined with (in effect) a
community sentence. In many jurisdictions, notably on the mainland of Europe, community sentences have developed as “conditional” prison sentences. In effect, the prison sentence is suspended, and provided that the community sentence is observed, is never invoked.
5.18 The framework in England and Wales has already taken a substantial step down that route. Section 53 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, when implemented, will require courts, when an offender breaches the conditions of a community sentence, to substitute a prison sentence, taking account of any compliance with the community sentence, unless there are good grounds for not doing so. The new framework advocated in this report would retain that power. One additional power is worth considering. When
